<sj> there's actually a lot of conflation of proximal reference with original source that goes on when one is lazy or pressed for time leading at times to the wrong people being recognized for discoveries when this was not their intent

<jgay> _sj_, yeah, that is really common.

the anti-ref: 'presents a different and possibly incompatible perspective'

'used as inspiration for this section' v. 'referred to for research but provided no inspiration for any section'

uses of sources

"I am relying on this source"

"I am refuting this source"

"I found this a source of amusement"

"this source was in my pile of library books at the end of the day, like the extra screws left over when you're done putting your whatsit back together"

types of cites

nocite - influential work is used but not referenced or cited.

noncite - incluential work is referenced in text but not in a cite

anticite - citing a work to indicate it was read or reviewed as a potential reference, but could not be used anywhere in the work

fauxcite - a random cite to make a section look better reffed than it is, not related

selfcite - citing self's work as prior art; one can cite all of one's prior publications if one is godo at this, in each new work

bibliocite - a cite to indicate a work was part of the reading/background

middlecite - an intermediary who is citing the underlying original source, but was the work directly read by the author. there can be many layers of middleciting